Some are still in the dark on Obama

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'll try once again. If the government is giving a person money, such as with welfare, what would be the point of giving them more so they could send some back?

For example, let's say a person earns $20,000. If one is permitted to deduct, say, $12,000 they would owe taxes on $8,000. ($20,000 - $12,000 = $8,000.) If a person is collecting $12,000 then they don't owe any tax.

Hold on a sec... point of giving them more? When the Feds raise my taxes, my boss doesn't pay me more. Why would we have to send them more? If a person earns $20k, he should be taxed the same as everyone else, you said so yourself. "All income should be taxed the same." ~Apple

Again... THE POINT.... that thing you continue to ask me for, and I continue to explain, hoping it might eventually penetrate your granite-like cranium, is so that those people who are benefiting the most from the system, are contributing something into the system. Now, if your argument is, they can't really afford to pay out money in taxes like the rest of us, perhaps the answer is to let them do some volunteer work, to earn their keep and have 'skin in the game'? (Biden's words) I would be willing to settle for that in lieu of taxation, if it makes you feel better. The thing I am currently opposed to, is a system where 48% pay no tax, and half of them are getting most of the benefits, while the rest of us are paying the tab. We can't continue to do this, we don't have enough income earners to support the welfare class.

I have always had this idea rolling around in my conservative head, that we could reform welfare, so that people who are getting gov't assistance, whether it's ADFC , WIC, SNAP, or housing, they would be required to give 40 hrs. of community service per month. That's less than two hours a day, so it wouldn't interfere with them finding work, going to school, or spending time with family, there would still be plenty of hours for all that. These volunteers could work in a variety of capacities, we could provide temporary day care for poor moms, or distribute meals to the elderly. Perhaps hospitals could get a few volunteers to offset the indigent care costs they are swallowing? All kinds of after school programs could be done, we have all kinds of facilities not being used.

Here is what such an idea would do... Three things... 1) It would virtually eliminate fraud, as there would be no motivation to steal benefits, because now "benefits" equal work. 2) It would weed out all but the truly needy, because most people aren't going to want to do the work for the benefits.... people will take ANYTHING that is FREE for the taking.... ALWAYS. 3) Those who ARE needy, and DO really need the help bad enough they are willing to do the community service, will have a sense of fulfillment, and pride, as they have now done their share and truly earned their benefits. Win-Win-Win!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

People are not quitting their job. They're getting laid off. UI pays around 50%?? Do you think people are quitting their job to collect 50%?

Sorry, when it comes to small businesses I don't have much sympathy. Why does the mechanic and the plumber and the architect and the hairdresser and the doctor and the lawyer and the.........open their own business? Well, I'll tell you why. They want to make more money than they would working for someone else. The problem is they quickly find out they're not as good as they thought they were.

As for retiring early, why not? You'll make an opening for someone else. If you have sufficient funds to live on, great! If you like to keep busy I suggest classic cars and gardening. I just changed the plugs in the old '54 and ordered a new liner for the fish pond.

And most important you can take an afternoon nap! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....see you a bit later.

There are more people now on disability and food stamps, than ever in our history. A LOT of people, are not able to find a job because there are none... faced with this, they are applying for disability, food stamps, and any kind of government assistance available. Unemployment has now been extended to up to three years and counting, no one in Congress ever seems to want to vote against extending benefits anymore, including Republicans.

Retiring early is GREAT! Being responsible for your own retirement, and planning for it years in advance, are what most Americans did until Social Security was invented. But that is the Capitalist system you want to destroy, so that every pot has a chicken, and life is fair for everyone, and we all have the same amount of everything, and no poor or old people ever die, remember?

In your Utopian Socialist system, you wanna know what happens to rich old farts like you, Apple? The transitioning Communists will argue that your wealth is needed to distribute among the masses, but the only real way to separate you from your wealth, is for you to go bye-bye, and one day... that's what happens... *poof* gone, like that... without a trace. Your family too, and everyone who could possibly lay claim to your wealth, and oh, ...looky here... unclaimed wealth now belongs to The State! As I said, eventually, all the power and money is controlled by the Ruling Class. That ain't gonna be you, Apple.

 

[apple0154]

You should try harder; because you essentially running around in circles, repeating the same old arguements, is accomplishing nothing.
Well, it does accomplish one thing and that would be you proving yourself as a hack.

Here’s a chronology of the posts.

Freedom: Msg #264: Apple keeps referring to countries that have Government Health Care and how great they are; but never seems to address the FACT that some of those same countries are having to cut back and the populace is rioting, because of the cut backs. It appears that he believes1+1=1, with 1 being a constant and unchanging.

Apple: Msg #270: That doesn't change the FACT medical care is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive. Furthermore, the rioting isn't over medical care.

Freedom: Msg #272: So you're saying that the moneys they are spending on Health Care, have nothing to do with the deficits that those countries are experiencing?

Apple: Msg #274: Everything has an impact. Health care is a vital program. There are other places to cut.

Freedom: Msg #276: That wasn't what I asked you; but it is exactly the kind of answer that a hack like you would respond with.

Apple: Msg #277: It's unfortunate you are unable to understand my reply. Perhaps re-reading may help.

Take note of msg #274. “Everything has an impact.”That means every government service contributes to a deficit which I would think is obvious. The same way buying groceries and paying for school supplies for one’s children contribute to a household deficit. However, that does not mean those things should not be obtained.

It’s unfortunate you were unable to understand my comments but it does explain your general inability to grasp the big picture regarding deficits. As the old saying goes the first step in addressing a problem is recognizing there is a problem so, all in all, we’re on the right track.

 

[apple0154]

Hold on a sec... point of giving them more? When the Feds raise my taxes, my boss doesn't pay me more. Why would we have to send them more? If a person earns $20k, he should be taxed the same as everyone else, you said so yourself. "All income should be taxed the same." ~Apple

No, your boss doesn't pay you more because you are not giving any money back to your boss. Think of it as the taxes are already deducted from welfare before the government sends the remainder.

Again... THE POINT.... that thing you continue to ask me for, and I continue to explain, hoping it might eventually penetrate your granite-like cranium, is so that those people who are benefiting the most from the system, are contributing something into the system. Now, if your argument is, they can't really afford to pay out money in taxes like the rest of us, perhaps the answer is to let them do some volunteer work, to earn their keep and have 'skin in the game'? (Biden's words) I would be willing to settle for that in lieu of taxation, if it makes you feel better. The thing I am currently opposed to, is a system where 48% pay no tax, and half of them are getting most of the benefits, while the rest of us are paying the tab. We can't continue to do this, we don't have enough income earners to support the welfare class.

I have always had this idea rolling around in my conservative head, that we could reform welfare, so that people who are getting gov't assistance, whether it's ADFC , WIC, SNAP, or housing, they would be required to give 40 hrs. of community service per month. That's less than two hours a day, so it wouldn't interfere with them finding work, going to school, or spending time with family, there would still be plenty of hours for all that. These volunteers could work in a variety of capacities, we could provide temporary day care for poor moms, or distribute meals to the elderly. Perhaps hospitals could get a few volunteers to offset the indigent care costs they are swallowing? All kinds of after school programs could be done, we have all kinds of facilities not being used.

Here is what such an idea would do... Three things... 1) It would virtually eliminate fraud, as there would be no motivation to steal benefits, because now "benefits" equal work. 2) It would weed out all but the truly needy, because most people aren't going to want to do the work for the benefits.... people will take ANYTHING that is FREE for the taking.... ALWAYS. 3) Those who ARE needy, and DO really need the help bad enough they are willing to do the community service, will have a sense of fulfillment, and pride, as they have now done their share and truly earned their benefits. Win-Win-Win!

That sounds great in theory, however, there are a couple of problems. First, it is ripe for abuse by the government getting little more than slave labor. The second problem is, as you explained, for some they "will have a sense of fulfillment, and pride, as they have now done their share and truly earned their benefits." The unmotivated will be content and consider it a permanent arrangement.

A more equitable arrangement would be for the government to offer training. The whole idea is we don't want the people to feel fulfilled on welfare. We want to motivate them and assist them in acquiring something better and that's accomplished through training.

 

[apple0154]

There are more people now on disability and food stamps, than ever in our history. A LOT of people, are not able to find a job because there are none... faced with this, they are applying for disability, food stamps, and any kind of government assistance available. Unemployment has now been extended to up to three years and counting, no one in Congress ever seems to want to vote against extending benefits anymore, including Republicans.

Retiring early is GREAT! Being responsible for your own retirement, and planning for it years in advance, are what most Americans did until Social Security was invented. But that is the Capitalist system you want to destroy, so that every pot has a chicken, and life is fair for everyone, and we all have the same amount of everything, and no poor or old people ever die, remember?

In your Utopian Socialist system, you wanna know what happens to rich old farts like you, Apple? The transitioning Communists will argue that your wealth is needed to distribute among the masses, but the only real way to separate you from your wealth, is for you to go bye-bye, and one day... that's what happens... *poof* gone, like that... without a trace. Your family too, and everyone who could possibly lay claim to your wealth, and oh, ...looky here... unclaimed wealth now belongs to The State! As I said, eventually, all the power and money is controlled by the Ruling Class. That ain't gonna be you, Apple.

I can assure you the government wouldn't see much benefit from my demise, financially speaking. I am far from rich.

It appears you have a distorted view of my beliefs. I am not a Socialist supporter. I do not like big government. The only thing I advocate is helping those in need. If a person has six homes and another individual is on the street they require a place a live. I do not advocate each one should have three homes. I do not advocate the wealthy person shold give a home to the street person either. I do advocate the street person requires a place to stay. Either the wealthy person can offer a room or pay taxes towards the street person renting a place.

Do you notice more and more gated communities springing up? That's what happens when there is a large discrepancy between individual wealth. That is why when tourists visit certain countries they're advised to stay near the resort. Do you want America to become like that?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Oddly enough, we do see more and more of that happening. More people are now on food stamps, than ever before. We've gone from 26-weeks of unemployment benefits to 2 years, and no end in sight to that. Across America, you are seeing small businesses fold up shop everyday, because they simply can't afford to lose money any longer. People like myself, who are in their 50s, are choosing to retire early and live on what pensions they have left, and whatever income they can make on the side. I've got enough money I don't have to work another day, but I enjoy having stuff to do. As a matter of fact, I have enough extra money, I could choose to invest some of it in a small business, but I ain't about to do that in the current economy.

I seem to recall that you have a fortune in Euros, or marks....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, your boss doesn't pay you more because you are not giving any money back to your boss. Think of it as the taxes are already deducted from welfare before the government sends the remainder.

Oh well, if we can think of it THAT way, we could say that welfare recipients actually pay more tax than anyone else, we just have to pretend it's pretend. Old Joe drew $20k in welfare benefits, but paid $4 million in taxes... of course we're imagining Joe was sent the $4 million and sent it back... but still...

No, I don't give money back to my boss, but a welfare recipient wouldn't be giving money back to the agency sending out welfare checks. Their money could go to the Defense Department or the FDA or EPA...maybe to pay an IRS worker? We can THINK of it THAT way! Yet another way to think of it is; "all income should be taxed the same."

That sounds great in theory, however, there are a couple of problems. First, it is ripe for abuse by the government getting little more than slave labor. The second problem is, as you explained, for some they "will have a sense of fulfillment, and pride, as they have now done their share and truly earned their benefits." The unmotivated will be content and consider it a permanent arrangement.

A more equitable arrangement would be for the government to offer training. The whole idea is we don't want the people to feel fulfilled on welfare. We want to motivate them and assist them in acquiring something better and that's accomplished through training.

Slave labor? How do you figure? The government is paying you in benefits, that's not slavery. Now, if my idea were to round up all welfare recipients and put them on a plantation picking cotton, whether they wanted to or not, where they wouldn't draw benefits, but would have all the essentials provided... THAT would be slavery. As for the unmotivated who will be content, we have those now. The difference would be, under my plan, we would actually gain some useful benefit of these people, as they would have to work to get benefits. As it presently stands, they are a complete and total drag on society, contributing absolutely nothing, but still getting paid regularly.

As for training people, this idea has been tried with some success in Georgia, under the Peach Program. If you are a poor kid who lacks the ability to pay for college, all you have to do is maintain a B average through high school, and the state of Georgia pays full tuition for college. This is paid for by the lottery. But again, the model involves some effort from the recipient, it isn't simply handed out like free candy with no expectation.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Now, if my idea were to round up all welfare recipients and put them on a plantation picking cotton, whether they wanted to or not, where they wouldn't draw benefits, but would have all the essentials provided... THAT would be slavery.

Like the slavery practiced by and fought for the racist traitors who raised the flag in your avatar?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I can assure you the government wouldn't see much benefit from my demise, financially speaking. I am far from rich.

It appears you have a distorted view of my beliefs. I am not a Socialist supporter. I do not like big government. The only thing I advocate is helping those in need. If a person has six homes and another individual is on the street they require a place a live. I do not advocate each one should have three homes. I do not advocate the wealthy person shold give a home to the street person either. I do advocate the street person requires a place to stay. Either the wealthy person can offer a room or pay taxes towards the street person renting a place.

Do you notice more and more gated communities springing up? That's what happens when there is a large discrepancy between individual wealth. That is why when tourists visit certain countries they're advised to stay near the resort. Do you want America to become like that?

Again, I don't know you, Apple, you seem sincere enough here, but what you are advocating will never achieve what you are expecting as a result. Socialist policies don't help people in need, they enslave people and take away their freedoms. Look at all the BILLIONS of people through the years, who have died in poverty in Socialist countries? When the central government is in charge of everything, and capitalism is dead, the people MUST depend on the government, which has NEVER provided what was promised. Free market capitalism and the freedom to pursue our entrepreneurial spirit, are what have ultimately worked to raise COUNTLESS people out of poverty, and in some cases, amass fortunes... look at Oprah Winfrey, for example. I mention her because everyone knows who she is, and I'll bet you, she doesn't credit welfare benefits for making her who she is today. I'll bet you, she credits hard work and determination to succeed, more than anything in the world, and that's something the government couldn't ever do for her, she had to do it herself. And she did it through capitalism and the free market system, in a country where she wasn't limited in her achievements, or punished for her success. Had Oprah been born in Moscow, she would have never been famous. Like millions of other poor people, she would have died after leading an uneventful life as slave to the state.

As for your wealth discrepancy, we've covered this already... We will NEVER live in a Utopia where everyone has the same amount. For the rest of our existence, we will NEVER encounter a time where wealth is shared equally among all... that reality and universe, simply does not exist. When one person has six houses and another person is homeless, THAT IS NORMAL. That is how life typically is, in the universe we all live in. Now, maybe it's sad... maybe it's 'unfair' in your eyes, but that IS the way it IS in reality. Some people always have more than others, and some people always suffer... been that way since time began.

And America is already like that (stay near the resort.) Ever been to Detroit? LA? Miami?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

look at Opera Winfrey, for example. I mention her because everyone knows who she is...

I don't. Who is Opera Winfrey?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I can assure you the government wouldn't see much benefit from my demise, financially speaking. I am far from rich.

Well you sure seemed to be bragging about all the neat things you get to do, and cool things you have... sounded a little like you might have 'more than you need' in the way of wealth, I certainly don't know of many welfare beneficiaries who are restoring old cars and such... So, whenever economic collapse inevitably happens as a result of killing capitalism, the people like you, who happen to have an abundance, will be sucked dry by your wonderful Socialist government, because that is more attractive to them than mass genocide. If you live in some Pollyanna world, where a socialist government collapses economically, yet allows people like you to retain their wealth, I can't help you with that, you are an idiot... of course, some things just go without saying.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So, whenever economic collapse inevitably happens as a result of killing capitalism, the people like you, who happen to have an abundance, will be sucked dry by your wonderful Socialist government, because that is more attractive to them than mass genocide. If you live in some Pollyanna world, where a socialist government collapses economically, yet allows people like you to retain their wealth, I can't help you with that, you are an idiot... of course, some things just go without saying.

I found a perfect place for you, Dix....except it's full of Black people.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Here’s a chronology of the posts.

Freedom: Msg #264: Apple keeps referring to countries that have Government Health Care and how great they are; but never seems to address the FACT that some of those same countries are having to cut back and the populace is rioting, because of the cut backs. It appears that he believes1+1=1, with 1 being a constant and unchanging.

Apple: Msg #270: That doesn't change the FACT medical care is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive. Furthermore, the rioting isn't over medical care.

Freedom: Msg #272: So you're saying that the moneys they are spending on Health Care, have nothing to do with the deficits that those countries are experiencing?

Apple: Msg #274: Everything has an impact. Health care is a vital program. There are other places to cut.

Freedom: Msg #276: That wasn't what I asked you; but it is exactly the kind of answer that a hack like you would respond with.

Apple: Msg #277: It's unfortunate you are unable to understand my reply. Perhaps re-reading may help.

Take note of msg #274. “Everything has an impact.”That means every government service contributes to a deficit which I would think is obvious. The same way buying groceries and paying for school supplies for one’s children contribute to a household deficit. However, that does not mean those things should not be obtained.

It’s unfortunate you were unable to understand my comments but it does explain your general inability to grasp the big picture regarding deficits. As the old saying goes the first step in addressing a problem is recognizing there is a problem so, all in all, we’re on the right track.

Hack on.

 

[Airstrip One]

I don't. Who is Opera Winfrey?

A jazz musician.

 

[apple0154]

Well you sure seemed to be bragging about all the neat things you get to do, and cool things you have... sounded a little like you might have 'more than you need' in the way of wealth, I certainly don't know of many welfare beneficiaries who are restoring old cars and such... So, whenever economic collapse inevitably happens as a result of killing capitalism, the people like you, who happen to have an abundance, will be sucked dry by your wonderful Socialist government, because that is more attractive to them than mass genocide. If you live in some Pollyanna world, where a socialist government collapses economically, yet allows people like you to retain their wealth, I can't help you with that, you are an idiot... of course, some things just go without saying.

Unfortunately, you're the idiot. The value of my cars, in total, represent the value of one new car. As for the neat things I get to do are you talking about putting in a fish pond? That was a riot digging the hole. And who wouldn't jump at the chance to pile rocks for a waterfall? And dig holes for trees........Yep, a real gifted life.

Unlike you, I do not require lots of money to have a satisfying life. Unlike you, wealth does not impress me. And unlike you, I do not find greed appealing.

 

[apple0154]

Again, I don't know you, Apple, you seem sincere enough here, but what you are advocating will never achieve what you are expecting as a result. Socialist policies don't help people in need, they enslave people and take away their freedoms. Look at all the BILLIONS of people through the years, who have died in poverty in Socialist countries? When the central government is in charge of everything, and capitalism is dead, the people MUST depend on the government, which has NEVER provided what was promised. Free market capitalism and the freedom to pursue our entrepreneurial spirit, are what have ultimately worked to raise COUNTLESS people out of poverty, and in some cases, amass fortunes... look at Oprah Winfrey, for example. I mention her because everyone knows who she is, and I'll bet you, she doesn't credit welfare benefits for making her who she is today. I'll bet you, she credits hard work and determination to succeed, more than anything in the world, and that's something the government couldn't ever do for her, she had to do it herself. And she did it through capitalism and the free market system, in a country where she wasn't limited in her achievements, or punished for her success. Had Oprah been born in Moscow, she would have never been famous. Like millions of other poor people, she would have died after leading an uneventful life as slave to the state.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not advocating Socialism. Let the free market function. Let people acquire as much money as they want. The only stipulation I have is some of that money has to be shared with those in need. Why do you keep talking about interfering with the freedom of the entrepreneurial spirit?

It seems you are stuck on something you read or heard many years ago, the demonization of Socialism and Communism, resulting in your inability to understand social programs.

As for your wealth discrepancy, we've covered this already... We will NEVER live in a Utopia where everyone has the same amount. For the rest of our existence, we will NEVER encounter a time where wealth is shared equally among all... that reality and universe, simply does not exist. When one person has six houses and another person is homeless, THAT IS NORMAL. That is how life typically is, in the universe we all live in. Now, maybe it's sad... maybe it's 'unfair' in your eyes, but that IS the way it IS in reality. Some people always have more than others, and some people always suffer... been that way since time began.

That is the reality that's been created. In the past wealhy folks paid a high percent in taxes, much higher than today and it didn't stop them from acquiring more money and it didn't dampen their entrepreneurial spirit. Check it out. Do some research. I've never known anyone who is so ignorant of history except their holding on to the fear and hatred of anything with the word "social" which was programmed into the population, years ago, during the cold war.

And America is already like that (stay near the resort.) Ever been to Detroit? LA? Miami?

Yes, it is like that and getting much worse every day. If you go back to the time when the middle class had a decent piece of the pie things were quite different and that's what's at the core of my political position, besides fairness. Considering my love of "motoring" there was a time when people could travel around North America (the US and Canada) and not be so concernd about what area they were in. More poeple had a decent shot at life. As statistics show the gap between workers and management was not that spead out. That has changed. Upper management wages have seen a huge increase while worker wages stagnated. Add to that the high unemployment and what do people expect?

The "bad area" of town was a relatively small area allowing the average person a large area to enjoy. That is changing. Rather than the "unlawful" being confined to a small area the average person is being confined to a small area. For example, if a person wanted to live in a secure area they simply avoided the bad area. Today, gated communities are springing up in areas one would think to be safe areas.

It's the same thing we see in poor countries, countries without adequate social programs. It ends up the average person has two choices. Well, not really choices. Many don't have the wealth to join the gated community class so they have no choice but to join the others. Unfortunately, the "righteous" poor are surrounded by the misfits and the unlawful. Society begins to crumble. Those wealthy enough to enjoy the amenities of the world have little problem, however, those who cannot afford world travel find their world shrinking. From the gated community to the office and don't get out of the car.

That is the price society is paying.

 

[apple0154]

Hack on.

Change the word "rave" for "hack" and sing along.

If you click the "CC" button at the bottom you'll see the lyrics.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Like when he said we would not be involved in nation building or when he said he would cut spending?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Unfortunately, you're the idiot. The value of my cars, in total, represent the value of one new car. As for the neat things I get to do are you talking about putting in a fish pond? That was a riot digging the hole. And who wouldn't jump at the chance to pile rocks for a waterfall? And dig holes for trees........Yep, a real gifted life.
Unlike you, I do not require lots of money to have a satisfying life. Unlike you, wealth does not impress me. And unlike you, I do not find greed appealing.

All I know is, when your dream of a Socialist government is realized, the result will eventually be, the government confiscating property from those who have more than others. You wanted a dream world where everyone has the same amount, well... that's how you get there! Many idiots like you, will reel off some stupidity like... "We should all share the wealth!" But when you count the number of people in the world, and divide by the wealth in the world, you come up with something like $30,000 per person. You think you might be able to live the rest of your life at your current lifestyle, on $30k? ...That's not 'per year' but total. Pinheads have no clue as to how much better off we are than most of the rest of the world. I have often said, our impoverished have a richer lifestyle than most 'average citizens' elsewhere.

As for your last line, I know that probably made you feel good, to spew a bunch of crap about something you know nothing about, but you really know nothing about me and who I am, or how much money I have, or anything else. You're flailing, because you can't articulate a point here, and it seems every point you make, I've either gotten you to reverse your position on it, because of how stupid I made you look, or you've simply ignored my points and resort to character smearing.

Greed is a fact of the human condition, it exists whether we like it or not, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, really. Trying to tax greed out of people, is FUTILE! The more you levy tax burdens, the more greedy people become. They find ways around your devices, loopholes, catch-22s, shelters... or they move their wealth to another country entirely. In the end, greedy people are just as greedy as before, if not, more so. Here's a simple example: A guy is making $100k a year, and he routinely gives 2% to charity ($2,000), you think that is "greedy" and he should be able to give more, so you raise his taxes by 2% ($2,000)... what will this guy do next year? Will he still give his regular 2% and at the same time, fork over another 2% in taxes? No... the 'greediness' kicks in and he says, fuck that, $2k is all they are getting, and he doesn't contribute to charity as usual. Now, if the government were able to operate at the same efficiency as most NPOs, this situation breaks even.... but... we know for a fact, the government is much less efficient, so that same $2k that would have been donated to an NPO, is now acquired through the tax base, where about 80% of the amount is eaten up in administration and bureaucratic red tape. By levying a mere 2% increase in tax, you have deprived the needy. In other words, your socialist policy and trying to 'even the field' actually hurts the poor.

Now, I am just as benevolent as you. I don't want people to suffer, just like you. I wish for everyone to have enough food, clothing, housing, and medical care, and I contribute my time AND money to charitable causes in my community. I'm not a less caring person than you, I am not more greedy than you, I just have a completely different perspective and understanding of things than you. I know that your way doesn't work, and actually creates MORE poverty in the end. I know that your ideas have failed every time they have been tried, because they stifle the human spirit and freedom to succeed. And if I truly did not care, I wouldn't have ever bothered responding to you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Isn't just sad to watch all the new conservatives, Tea Party and Libertrian members just lose their freaking minds over the fact that the same failed anti-Obama mantras of the 2008 campaign are definitely NOT working now in light of FACTS that show an improvement over the failed "reaganomics on Steroids" policies of GW Bush?

The OP has been proven wrong time and again, but the insipid stubborness of the forementioned advocates knows no shame or when their propaganda is working against them. Sad, but strangely entertaining!

Case in point:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...till-in-the-dark-on-Obama&p=989211#post989211